Starbuck wrote:About eight years ago I developed software that allowed Byesian Belief Networks to be created and calculated. I fully understand how probabilities from prior and observable data can be computed. I have never really understood how soft observations ie human behavior, could be fully determined.
What approach are you going to use to address this issue?
Now that sounds like software I would LOVE to have! Is it available? How do I go about getting it?
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Chap wrote: When the apologists think that there really is some objective evidence is in favour of the Book of Mormon, they make a big, big noise about it, like it was really a game changer. Films, websites, articles, the lot.
But once it is punctured (and so far it always seems to be) ... they suddenly don't need anything so vulgar as evidence any more. Their burning in the bosom is infinitely superior.
Philo Sofee wrote:I see nowhere where Shulem assumes this however. No one has to have everything figured out in order to have some things figured out. You honestly don't grasp that simple point? We don't have to know everything about a subject in order to draw out the probabilities of whether it is even in the ball park or not. You certainly don't know everything there is about Mormonism yet that doesn't stop you from making all sorts of pronouncements of supposed knowledge about it. If you had to learn everything FIRST, you wouldn't be able to say anything for the next several decades. So this strawman you keep throwing at Shulem is ineffective and silly.
I believe that what the Egyptologists have discovered is not sufficient to undo the work of Joseph Smith.
Zerinus has little to no knowledge of what Egyptology has discovered. The difference between Zerinus and Shulem and Philo is that they have spent years defending the Book of Abraham while learning a lot about the subject and what Egyptology has discovered about it. Zerinus has done none of this. All three wanted to defend Joseph as Prophet, but only two(Shulem and Philo) spent actual time learning the relevant evidences and issues. You cannot have a meaningful conversation with someone like Zerinus who is unwilling to even learn the basics of the issue. Most here started as believers wanting to defend Joseph as prophet, but changed their views as they learned the relevant evidence. Zerinus's greatest defense of his testimony is his stubborn refusal to learn anything about the issue. I see no cure for this. I can at least respect people like Clark Goble who will spend time learning.
Nicely put. When the apologists think that there really is some objective evidence is in favour of the Book of Mormon, they make a big, big noise about it, like it was really a game changer. Films, websites, articles, the lot.
But once it is punctured (and so far it always seems to be) ... they suddenly don't need anything so vulgar as evidence any more. Their burning in the bosom is infinitely superior.
However, in that case why bother with any evidence, ever? And why come here to argue, when you just KNOW?
A very good point. If the Spirit is so sure a guide, why doesn't God simply send it all over the world already?! It literally makes no sense. The claims of the leaders make no sense. God apparently doesn't think it is all so important a thing to do as guide the world. He loved it so much he gave his only begotten son, and then went hiking through the universe or something.
Philo, do you know that there is a "science" of the study of the Holy Spirit called Pneumatology? Some "Doctors of Divinity" specialize in it. Apparently CARM founder Matt Slick is such an expert. Just to make it clear that the Saints have no monopoly on the credulity market.
Starbuck wrote:About eight years ago I developed software that allowed Byesian Belief Networks to be created and calculated. I fully understand how probabilities from prior and observable data can be computed. I have never really understood how soft observations ie human behavior, could be fully determined.
What approach are you going to use to address this issue?
Now that sounds like software I would LOVE to have! Is it available? How do I go about getting it?
I'll check to see if I have a copy somewhere.
We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented. It's as simple as that. ~ Christof
zerinus wrote: That is right, that is what I believe. Just because they are called “Egyptologists,” it does not automatically follow that they must be right and Joseph Smith wrong. They may have discovered some truths about Egyptian hieroglyphics, but that does not mean that they have discovered everything. I think it is perfectly possible that Joseph Smith knew something that they don’t know, or have not yet discover. Your problem is you start with the assumption that Joseph Smith was false, therefore any discrepancies between him and the Egyptologists must be his fault. You are not willing to countenance the alternative proposition, which is not a logical or necessary assumption..
You don't believe Joseph Smith was wrong and that Egyptology is necessarily right. They have only discovered some truths but not everything there is to know. You feel that Joseph Smith knew something that they don't know or have yet to discover about Facsimile No. 3. Just what is it that Joseph Smith discovered about Facsimile No. 3 that modern Egyptology has failed to learn? Well, let's see: Joseph Smith lifted up Isis's skirt and found out she has a pair of testicles and a penis. That's an amazing discovery from the Mormon translator! I stand in awe of Joseph Smith's amazing intuition and prowess. Joseph Smith also lifted his hand up the skirt of the lovely Maat and "discovered" another penis. Isn't that right, zerinus?
You and Joe have informed modern Egyptology that Isis and Maat have a penis and the Book of Abraham is true.
I'm ready to come back to church now. You've convinced me.
I've got your paper still in holding mode and will get back to it as able. I went to the zoo yesterday and today I'm going to Six Flags over Texas.
I can assure you that zerinus isn't aware of the evidence and has not used logic or reason to digest anything he consumes. His arrogance and brainwashed mind refuses to see light and he chooses to remain in darkness with his Spooky Ghost. I don't think he will last much longer. He's on the cliff and all it will take is some sudden life changes or bad experiences at church. He's an angry one and his eventual apostasy will be a turbulent event.
Just to make it clear that the Saints have no monopoly on the credulity market.